"NAGS" Zone

[Trey1331]

I will be excited to see how a lot of the Pros handle some of the tight courses at Charlotte. I do expect to hear some bitching about unfair holes because some of the holes at Nevin, HN and Renny really punish you if you miss the fairway.

I'll elaborate further on what frank said.

If any of you guys in NC were able to come down an watch the Clash when it was a major either 2 or 3 years ago, you will remember seeing some of the absolute angriest pro's in the world claiming that charlotte was nothing but "old man courses". Worlds this year will be much of the same.

**Edit** I want to also add, that I can't freaking wait! Its going to be a killer challenge and I'm hoping for a hometown hero to win.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Well, the good news is those pros will be 3 years "older men"...

 

[Working Stiff]

Are the courses just tight, or are they significantly shorter as well?

 

[money 21]

I think having mutilpe tees in tourneys is a great idea. This last year we had tourney here where OB/ missing mandos off the tee were played different for the levels. Rec if ob/mm went to the drop zone no penlty. Advanced ob/mm went to drop with one stroke. Open had to retee with stroke. The first round was no big deal. the second round a 25mph wind can up and the advanced scores and open score got real close.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Working Stiff - Are the courses just tight, or are they significantly shorter as well?

Definitely not shorter, at least the ones Open will play. But I think the pros are referring to the bends and doglegs on the wooded holes that don't allow them to throw longer and thus they are "old man" holes.

 

[jubuttib]

Pussies.

 

[kscustom]

Ro co is the man!

I agree with chuck

 

[Frank Delicious]

I don't think anyone can call Nevin Long an old man's course

 

[whiz]

Holes 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 16 and 17 are all "old man" holes. Holes 12, 14 and 18 are debatable. This will probably only make sense if you have played Nevin but I will attempt to explain. Nevin is a very tight and wooded course. The holes I am referring to are all par 4 or 5 holes that are relatively short (except 12) relative to the par.

Hole 1 is probably less than 480'. It is a dogleg right par 4 where the shot from the tee to the LZ (landing zone) is uphill and the shot from the LZ to the pin is downhill. The tee shot to LZ is maybe 230' and the LZ to pin is maybe 250'. The key here is that there are quite a few trees left in the "fairway" just at/after the landing zone. Thus, you risk taking an extra stroke if you throw a shot past the landing zone (from the tee) as you cannot see/avoid the guardian trees just past the landing zone. This creates a two shot hole were the high percentage is to play two short (<300') shots to take a birdie. The premium is on shot making, not distance.

Hole 4 is roughly 460'. The hole is mostly straight with a slight right bend at the 230'ish mark. There are many large trees one the right side of the fairway between the tee and the landing zone (around 200'-240'). Between the landing zone and the pin there are no trees in the fairway. I have seen shots thrown within 70' of the basket, suggesting twos are certainly in play for the pros, however, the trees near the landing zone and a very tough situation if you get off the fairway leads most players to play a first shot of <250' to get a good approach shot to the basket for the bird.

Hole 5 is the shortest par 5 in Charlotte. It is only 570'ish but a brutal hole. To start with the rough is ridiculous. The first shot of the tee is a right-left shallow hyzer that you want to finish straight and not hyzer out. It is a very difficult shot to shape. The gap to hit is about 150' from the tee and about 20' wide. The fairway narrows at the gap for about 50' before opening up to the landing zone between 200' and 290'. The second shot forces you to hit a tight 10' gap with a shot that turns sharply from left to right. From there you have an "easy" 200' upshot to the basket, guarded by a number of big oaks on the left side of the fairway. There is really no way to get close for a putt for three despite the short length of the hole. My best two shots have left me with a 80' upshot to take a birdie 4.

If you want to hear the explanation for the other holes I would be happy to provide one. The basic theory behind Nevin is either leaving in trees or tightening the fairway ensuring that the highest percentage method of playing a hole is to throw multiple short shots rather than trying to bomb a drive. To shoot a 1090 rated round at Nevin you would have to throw no further than 300', accurately. Thus, it is an "old man" course, if that is how you wish to put it. In a way, it makes it harder for a player who throws a long way to shoot well. Someone like Jenkins or Gurthie is always looking for ways to gain a stroke on the field using his distance. To try to do so at Nevin is to risk (many) bogies.

 

[whiz]

Oh, and since we are on the topic of the "NAGS" zone. I think the simplest way to describe it is to imagine a wide open hole that is 60' further than your max distance shot. Think about how boring a hole that would be for you. Unless you make a colossal mistake, you will be taking a 3 on the hole almost all the time. To run the upshot is really risking taking a bogie and not a smart decision.

This is one reason why I feel many people feel that Phil Moore is the weakest of the courses used for the Bowling Green Amateur Championships. It has some, not many, but some holes that are par 3s but out of reach for almost all AMs. This does not create good scoring separation. I would almost like to see more artificial OB used at Phil Moore with the OB tightening as you get closer to the green rather than opening up. This would create more of a risk for the few players who do run the 400'+ holes without the accuracy to place their shot. It would also create a better scoring separation.

There are very few holes in Charlotte that I would describe as "poorly designed" but one of them would be hole 10 at Eastway. It is a wide-open 400' slightly uphill shot. I have put it in the circle ONCE and even the pros around here do not birdie it consistently. If the pin were closer to the OB road/fence or the tee were slightly closer to the pin I feel that it would be a MUCH better hole.

 

[Frank Delicious]

There are very few holes in Charlotte that I would describe as "poorly designed" but one of them would be hole 10 at Eastway. It is a wide-open 400' slightly uphill shot. I have put it in the circle ONCE and even the pros around here do not birdie it consistently. If the pin were closer to the OB road/fence or the tee were slightly closer to the pin I feel that it would be a MUCH better hole.

God that hole is so boring, it takes a pretty poor teeshot to make that hole challenging. They should really move the basket like 50' closer and a few feet closer to the road.

Also while I see where you're coming from with Nevin Long being an old man course my thought process on it was that except for some holes (5, 17) a long drive can be used to put you in birdie, eagle, whatever range if you are willing to take the chance. Holes like 4 (which you mentioned) and 18 among others can be reached or at least gotten close to if the thrower is willing to risk the drive. Hole 12 is a great hole for risk/reward teeshot. A finesse player can just take a control driver and throw into the woods a bit, a big bomber can try to get way down there for a short upshot and a putt at the 3. 14 is another hole you can risk your tee shot if you feel you can lay down a good stand up roller. 16 can be gotten to with a long flick plus a skip.

Of course I've never played that course with the top charlotte pros so I don't know how much they would actually be willing to try something like that.

 

[whiz]

On hole 4 there really just isn't a good gap to hit and the fairway tightens up so much. In US Doubles play one partner would of course go for it but in singles play I don't think MJ or Jerm would throw that shot. For top pros, the percentage of getting a 4 by trying the big drive and kicking is higher than the percentage of getting a 2. Most pros would get a three there so taking a four would be losing a stroke to the field. Maybe it would be worth risking it but only if you have amazing get-out-of-trouble shots. The rough near the basket on four is PUNISHING.

On hole 18 the fairway slopes back up too much at the end to get within 50' of the basket (referring to drives by Jerm, Henry etc.). During US doubles only one team took a two and that was (I believe) with a throw in by Barry/Schwebby of 80'+. Throwing over the creek gives you a shorter upshot but for top pros the percentage difference between having a 250' upshot and a 100' upshot is negligible.

I was referring more to hole 12 long than the short. I like 12 short but due to the shape of the fairway you really need to get at least 350' off the tee for a good upshot. If you are much shorter the fairway is just too tight, plus the trees left in the fairway.

On Eastway hole 10, I would love to see the tee moved up and to the right where the rough is now. This would bring both the road past the basket and the OB wood fence into play for shots.

 

[garublador1]

Separate from this issue, I think a bigger problem is simply producing a better basket design, not necessarily smaller diameter.

That seems to be the biggest issue that no one wants to address. It keeps getting put off and the impact it has is growing at the same rate as the popularity of the sport. The fact that it's being ignored while popularity is being actively sought out is one of the reasons I think the PDGA is doing a bad job. They're just making the problem worse and worse from both ends. Making silly work around rules like DROT or trying to force a certain diameter of disc in a certain range is a terrible way to combat the problem. If you need a work around to help out while you're also fixing the root of the problem that's one thing, but a work around with no actual fix is an awful way to do things.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What would you suggest the PDGA could do to change things other than encourage manufacturers to improve the baskets? The PDGA has no design engineers nor manufacturing capability. Yes, we could set specs for an official target. But what would those be without prototyping, testing over a long period and getting manufacturer buy-in?

 

[kscustom]

DROT? disc resting on top?

 

[Frank Delicious]

What would you suggest the PDGA could do to change things other than encourage manufacturers to improve the baskets? The PDGA has no design engineers nor manufacturing capability. Yes, we could set specs for an official target. But what would those be without prototyping, testing over a long period and getting manufacturer buy-in?

Make it a contest where whichever manufacturer comes up with the best re-designed basket can put "official basket of the PDGA" on all their baskets.

That thought started out as a joke but now I'm half serious.

 

[garublador1]

What would you suggest the PDGA could do to change things other than encourage manufacturers to improve the baskets? The PDGA has no design engineers nor manufacturing capability. Yes, we could set specs for an official target. But what would those be without prototyping, testing over a long period and getting manufacturer buy-in?

I know this is totally off the wall and outside the box, but what about working with a manufacturer, making some prototypes, doing some testing and then getting manufacturer buy in? How is that worse than just ignoring the problem and doing nothing? It can't take more time than infinity, which is how long it will take to fix the problems if you never do anything. The sooner you start the sooner you'll be done.

How about rather than actual dimensions, you make the specs in terms of how the basket works. Rather than giving actual dimensions of the target, which no one actually cares about, how about you make the specs in terms of how well it catches and what shot's it rejects, which is what's actually important. If you don't want DROT's, then they should be impossible. Same goes for wedgies. Leave it up to the manufacturers as to how to do it. If you want it to catch fewer putts, force it to reject anything that doesn't hit withing a certain range of the center of the device. "All" the PDGA has to do is come up with testing standards, but if you're working with manufacturers (which you should be doing) then you'll have plenty of expertise at your hands and should be able to come to a consensus. Why would the PDGA need design engineers for that?

The other option is to accept the flaws in the current basket and stop trying to "fix" them with silly work arounds. All these DROT's (disc resting on top) don't count and wegies only count if the happen from the inside are stupid rules that should only be in place if an actual fix to those "problems" is actively being implemented. If it's fully supported by the basket when you get your disc it's in, period. Any situation where it's fully supported by the basket and it's not counted as in needs to be impossible.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There's no such thing as "working with the manufacturers." Which one do you choose without lawsuit? And there are too many to create a team. It's a capitalistic environment in a relatively small market. There's more than enough flexibility in the current specs to improve the baskets. But that involves cost to all of the manufacturers with not a great payoff. The contest idea has been discussed a few times over the years but other issues have had higher priority. Manufacturers would not be too keen on losing their existing design features and tooling if forced into a specific future model.

Players have indicated their love for chains but I doubt the ideal basket that solves the current problems would necessarily include them. I believe if a better basket could be made, it would have been done by now. But any entrepreneur looking at the DG landscape and how difficult it has been to get the funds for current baskets would calculate that the potential market is not large enough to produce sufficient payoff for that level of innovation and financial commitment over maybe 10 years. It might take years to overturn the existing standards where there would be great resistence in changing them quickly if ever.

Don't think the idea hasn't crossed many minds in the manufacturer and DG mover and shaker world. But figuring out how to pull it off is the devil in the details.

 

[DigIt]

Some shit Chuck said about junk.

Congratulations on making it into the Hall of Fame in Minn. Chuck. Pretty sure that was you that I read got in in the latest magazine.

Sorry for the levity, back to the great discourse.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Thanks. You copied my original post so fast I couldn't finish the edits!